Review PG&E San Bruno blast penalty, 3 CPUC members urge

Updated 8:13 am, Friday, October 3, 2014

Fire fighters from around the Peninsula battled the blaze. A blast believed to be caused by a natural gas explosion destroyed a San Bruno, Calif. neighborhood Thursday September 9, 2010.

Fire fighters from around the Peninsula battled the blaze. A blast believed to be caused by a natural gas explosion destroyed a San Bruno, Calif. neighborhood Thursday September 9, 2010.

Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle

Review PG&E San Bruno blast penalty, 3 CPUC members urge

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Three members of the California Public Utilities Commission called Thursday for the panel to review the $1.4billion penalty that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. faces for the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion.

Commissioners Catherine Sandoval, Mike Florio and Michael Picker all questioned the sanctions that two administrative law judges imposed last month against the utility for safety violations and record-keeping snafus uncovered after the explosion four years ago that killed eight people.

Judges Amy Yip-Kikugawa and Mark Wetzell ordered PG&E to pay a $950million fine, refund about $400million in unspent safety money to customers and compensate state and local agencies a total of $50million for auditing and other costs.

PG&E appealed the order to the commission Thursday, saying the company deserves more credit for money its shareholders have already spent on safety improvements. So did the city of San Bruno, which wants an independent monitor to keep track of PG&E’s safety program.

Sandoval’s filing indicates that PG&E should be made to pay more in fines, safety improvements or both. She said she wanted to know whether the current $1.4billion penalty is “adequate” and whether more money from shareholders might be used for safety improvements, “either instead of or in addition” to fines.

Florio was not as definitive. He raised questions about the mix of fines and safety costs that the company’s shareholders should have to pay, and asked whether California law requires that all the penalties levied against the company go into the state’s general fund.

“I am requesting review of these issues because I believe they are of sufficient gravity to merit the attention of the full commission,” Florio said in a statement, “not to indicate how I may eventually decide the merits of such issues.”

Picker also sought to review the mix of fines versus costs, but suggested he was not enthusiastic about punishing the utility or its shareholders.

Picker said he wants to review whether the $1.4billion penalty is “appropriate” and accounts for all of PG&E’s safety spending. He also suggested he is troubled by the precedent set by forcing company shareholders to pay the costs of public agencies, including the city of San Bruno.

One of the five commissioners, Michael Peevey, recused himself from voting on the penalty after PG&E released e-mails showing his top aide tried to help the company in assigning a preferred judge to an unrelated rate case.